Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4683 ..
ATTACHMENT 3
President: W.J. (Bill) Curnow 27 Araba Street
ARANDA ACT 2614
Hon. Secretary: Janne Crump Tel. 06-2515357
Fax by arrangemt.
15 December, 1996
Mr Andrew Whitecross MLA
ACT Legislative Assembly
Fax No. 2050135
Dear Mr Whitecross,
I am writing further to my request for the Labor Party's support for an inquiry into the helmets law for cyclists. I do this because I gained the impression from my conversations with Justin Mahon that you may still be reluctant to support an inquiry.
I find it hard to understand your reluctance. Surely, as responsible public officers, Labor MLAs should be concerned that the helmets law is serving a socially useful purpose, and therefore keen to investigate evidence that it is not - such as the NHMRC's evaluation and the Robinson paper. You have demanded strong evidence that helmets increase the risk of injury. We have supplied it. What is it that you're not convinced about?
I point out, too, that MLAs were not properly advised in 1992 when the helmets legislation was introduced and there has never been any strong evidence that helmet wearing protects from brain injury. Politicians have just assumed it without proper advice. The design and testing of helmets according to the Australian standard does not take account of the mechanics of brain injury. Testing is of linear forces only, it being too difficult to measure rotational forces. Theory and experiments with animals have shown, however, that the main cause of brain injury is rotational force, not linear force as is produced by a direct blow to the head. Taking account of the theory and experimental evidence, the NHMRC has judged that helmet wearing is likely to increase brain injury. What politician is competent to dismiss that view?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .